Slartibartfaster:ox45tallboy: the label of "Christian" just doesn't mean "follower of Christ" the way that "Buddhist" means "follower of Buddha".

never met a chinese buddhist I see

No, I haven't. The Buddhists I have known all just look to the Buddha as an example of how to live a fulfilling life, but never get caught up in dogma the way most Christians seem to.

I'm willing to bet in China that many people consider themselves "Buddhist" simply because they were exposed to the teachings early, but aren't really devoutly into it. Kind of like American Catholics.

Big_Fat_Liar:I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees. My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay. You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work. It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.

2004 called. They say their strawman is old and tired and they want him back so he can finally have a nice rest.

grumpfuff:I'm assuming then, that you are equally mad that someall Christian charities only donate to causes they consider Christian?

I hope you don't mind I changed that slightly so I could say that I would encourage them to diversify as I have just done with the other groups, I'll be consistent. I give support to at least two local "Christian Charities" that help people regardless of faith.

ciberido:Unfortunately, the Paulians would never agree to this: they'd insist, all evidence to the contrary, that they were following the actual teachings of Jesus just as much as the Jesusians and thus deserved the title. I suspect it would be rather like how young earth creationists insist what they believe is just as scientific as "evolutionism" and deserves equal coverage in the science classroom.

My family believes (and this is common in the Church of Christ) that Paul's words should carry as much weight as Jesus' because he was an Apostle of God, and his words were inspired by God. Anything that Jesus was unclear on, like homosexuality, we should refer to Paul's teachings as if they came from Jesus himself, because Paul was kind of "filling in the gaps" of what didn't make it into the written stuff, and demonstrating how to apply Jesus' teachings in real life situations.

Because of this, they believe slavery is okay, but it wasn't commanded. This is the main reason I dismiss Paul's teachings - I'm not going to let anyone claim to be a moral authority I should listen to when they say human slavery is okay as long as you don't treat your slaves too badly.

Tyee:grumpfuff: I'm assuming then, that you are equally mad that some all Christian charities only donate to causes they consider Christian?

I hope you don't mind I changed that slightly so I could say that I would encourage them to diversify as I have just done with the other groups, I'll be consistent. I give support to at least two local "Christian Charities" that help people regardless of faith.

You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.

Slartibartfaster:ox45tallboy: the label of "Christian" just doesn't mean "follower of Christ" the way that "Buddhist" means "follower of Buddha".

never met a chinese buddhist I see

In any internet discussion of religion, as the thread continues, the odds that someone will claim that all religions are bad will increase towards certainty; after that claim is made, if the thread continues on long enough, it is inevitable that someone will claim that Buddhism is an exception to that rule.

I call it "ciberido's 7th law," but only because I don't have a better name for it. I'm sure someone observed it long before I did.

ox45tallboy:My parents were houseparents at a children's group home when I was growing up. At the time, I didn't understand the way that the director had to play politics with everyone in order to keep funding going, I just heard my parents b*tching about it an awful lot.

Thing is, they forced the kids to attend religious services as a condition of staying there, with the alternative being a "reform school" type of institution. It did not endear Christianity to any of them the way you might think, especially considering that it was such a fundamentalist church.

Having said that, the idea that these churches are somehow "protecting" these kids from gay people is laughable. Here's a hint: these kids already interact with gay people on a daily basis, and nothing you can do or say to these kids will change the fact that some of them will be gay themselves.

The tragedy of this, to me, is that it cost this director his job. He was trying to do the right thing and get funding for these kids. Thing is, no one takes a job like that unless they really do want to do some good; it doesn't pay very well at all, and you have to take the "self-satisfaction" of doing genuinely good work by providing children who have suffered abuse and neglect through no fault of their own with an alternative to the institutions as part of your salary.

Of course they're protecting kids from gay people. These kids get to see that gay people are hated and kicked out of jobs, so they'll learn how to treat gay people badly and discriminate against them.

And for the ones who are gay, as there will inevitably be a few, they can learn a sense of shame about themselves, and possibly keep it in the closet, except in airport restroom stalls like good Republicans. Or even better they can hate themselves so much that they'll go ahead and eliminate one more gay person, saving the good christians the trouble of having to drag him behind their truck to send him to hell.

Tyee:grumpfuff: I'm assuming then, that you are equally mad that some all Christian charities only donate to causes they consider Christian?

I hope you don't mind I changed that slightly so I could say that I would encourage them to diversify as I have just done with the other groups, I'll be consistent. I give support to at least two local "Christian Charities" that help people regardless of faith.

allylloyd:Some of us belong to churches with assigned readings on Sundays--unless this particular topic has something to do with one of the readings, which are called "lessons" and the sermon is teach a lesson related to one of the readings (OT,NT, Psalm or Gospel) why would they?

Interesting. Why not? Pat Robertson and other TV evangelists don't seem to have a problem with teaching their views in light of world events. Why don't more pulpit preachers do the same?

I do some work helping my sister's church send an aid package to Guyana every few months when I'm around. Recently, they asked me to redo the computers they are sending down there, and put on a Bible app and stuff, and get a router set up that they're all ready to connect to. They're teaching the people there a brand of Christianity I don't care for (same fundamentalist Church of Christ I grew up in), but they are providing good assistance of clothes and medication (and technology) to these people.

I don't find myself to be hypocrite for donating my time and work to this cause, any more than anyone else who attends this church and participates in this mission work is a hypocrite because they have some more minor difference in dogma. Good work is good work, even if you don't agree with everything being done.

grumpfuff:You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.

Isn't that what the Baptists are doing? Focusing on what their cause and where their beliefs? You might not agree with their interpretation of scripture but they are not giving to something they believe is counter to their beliefs. I'm sure they still give to other causes, just not the 180 off type. It would be like the LGBT charity stopping support funding anti-gay activists would you be getting upset over that? I wouldn't think so.

DarkVader:Of course they're protecting kids from gay people. These kids get to see that gay people are hated and kicked out of jobs, so they'll learn how to treat gay people badly and discriminate against them.

And for the ones who are gay, as there will inevitably be a few, they can learn a sense of shame about themselves, and possibly keep it in the closet, except in airport restroom stalls like good Republicans. Or even better they can hate themselves so much that they'll go ahead and eliminate one more gay person, saving the good christians the trouble of having to drag him behind their truck to send him to hell.

I linked to this earlier, but here it is again (warning: PDF). This is from one of the several lawsuits filed against this organization stemming from their firing of a counselor/teacher when they discovered she was a lesbian. I thought this was appropriate to show how non-hyperbolic your statement actually is:

23. On information and belief, KBHC seeks to instill its version of Christian values andteachings to the youth in its care by, among other things, taking the youth to Baptist church services,hiring only staff who model KBHC's version of Christian values and lifestyles, denying the youthaccess to healthy adult gay and lesbian role models, providing informal Christian training to theyouth through KBHC staff, and placing foster children in Baptist foster homes. KBHC'sChrist-centered mission permeates KBHC programs and the services that KBHC provides to youthin its care.24. KBHC requires all employees to "exhibit values in their professional conduct andpersonal lifestyles that are consistent with the Christian mission and purpose of the institution."

-SNIP-

28. Shortly thereafter, Jack Cox informed PEDREIRA that the KBHC Cabinet decidedto ask PEDREIRA to resign because she is a lesbian. PEDREIRA refused to resign. Shortlythereafter, PEDREIRA was informed that she would be terminated because her sexual orientationwas inconsistent with KBHC's religious beliefs.29. PEDREIRA and Cox decided that it would be clinically dangerous if PEDREIRA'sdeparture were not explained to the youth in her care, who might feel abandoned if they thought herdeparture was voluntary, or might feel that their trust was violated unless they were told the truereason for her departure. Therefore, for therapeutic reasons, PEDREIRA agreed to explain to theyouth the reason she was being fired, and she and Cox met with the young men for this purpose.PEDREIRA had never discussed her sexual orientation with any of the young men until thismeeting.30. PEDREIRA suffered great humiliation and embarrassment as a result of beingforced to disclose her sexual orientation, and the fact that she was being terminated because of it,to the youth in her care. Nonetheless, she told the young men in order to protect their well-being.31. The following day, PEDREIRA led a regularly scheduled group session with theyoung men. Several of them were upset because another KBHC staff member told them thatPEDREIRA, who the young men had come to trust, was no better than a murderer because she wasgay and therefore deserved to be fired. Several of the youth expressed fear that they could beexpelled from KBHC if they were gay. PEDREIRA did her best to calm them and tried to reassurethem that they would be protected.32. PEDREIRA suffered further humiliation and embarrassment as she helped theyoung men in her care understand and accept her termination and worked to repair the sense ofabandonment, betrayal, and instability caused by KBHC.the youth in her care. Nonetheless, she told theyoung men in order to protect their well-being

Tyee:grumpfuff: You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.

Isn't that what the Baptists are doing? Focusing on what their cause and where their beliefs? You might not agree with their interpretation of scripture but they are not giving to something they believe is counter to their beliefs. I'm sure they still give to other causes, just not the 180 off type. It would be like the LGBT charity stopping support funding anti-gay activists would you be getting upset over that? I wouldn't think so.

Notice that I am not taking issue with them not donating to non-Baptist causes. I am not taking issue with them not funding LGBT causes. I am taking issue with them withholding funding unless the receiver practices bigotry. What they are saying to me is "Condemning the homogheys is more important than helping children in need."

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't too big on judging, and was pretty big on helping those in need.

Tyee:grumpfuff: You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.

Isn't that what the Baptists are doing? Focusing on what their cause and where their beliefs? You might not agree with their interpretation of scripture but they are not giving to something they believe is counter to their beliefs. I'm sure they still give to other causes, just not the 180 off type. It would be like the LGBT charity stopping support funding anti-gay activists would you be getting upset over that? I wouldn't think so.

That makes no sense. Are you saying feeding the children is the greater evil compared to discriminating against LGBT-inclusive organizations? And don't pull the false-choice crap-- in the overall calculus of determining what's more important in the Lord's eyes, are you saying they made the right decision?

Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.

*coughs*

As a decent person who calls herself a Christian, I say publicly and on a regular basis that this kind of discrimination isn't Christian at all.

Maybe they don't see it as bigotry.Maybe they interpret it as willful disobedience to God. You may, but I'm not going to judge them for what and/or how they believe. I will say this, I would do it much differently.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't too big on judgingI'll forgive you but it isn't my forgiveness you seek

ox45tallboy:I don't think people read the Bible looking for Jesus's message of love and compassion anymore. In fact, I think they purposefully skip over those parts. I love my dad, but I can't believe anyone would want to subscribe to any religion that taught hate and bigotry.

1) Nowhere do any of the earliest known New Testament manuscripts use the name "Jehovah," "YHWH," or any variation thereupon to describe "the Father."

2) Jesus stated prior to his crucifixion that his death would drive out "the prince of this world." It is widely agreed that "the prince of this world" refers to "the devil." John 12:31.

3) Paul states that the "god of this world" has "blinded" people to the truth. It is widely agreed that "the god of this world" here refers to the devil.

4) The devil reportedly offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world" to stray from the true path, suggesting that all the kingdoms of the world were his to give.

5) Popular interpretation of Genesis holds that Jehovah created this world.

6) Throughout the Old Testament, it is clear that Jehovah is the "god of this world."

7) Nowhere does either testament indicate when or why Jehovah handed over "the keys to the kingdom," so to speak, to the devil.

Conclusion: the evil "god of this world" who tempted Jesus, who had "blinded" people to the truth, was to Christ's apostles Jehovah Elohim.

Implication: virtually all of contemporary Christendom has been duped into worshiping the devil, in the guise of Jehovah Elohim. The "New Covenant?" It and all its predecessors are contracts with the devil.

Anyone whose faith tells them that discriminating against homosexuals matters more than providing for needy children has accepted that contract with the devil.

gerrymander:ox45tallboy: Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.

There's evidence that he would have: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."

Exactly which owns what is what we're working out now. If "charity for abused children" is correctly to be usurped from the sacred world in favor of the secular, then the churches previously donating should find better use for their money fulfilling the mission they've chosen. The church members already pay taxes, which fulfills their obligation to the government.

I disagree.Mark 2:15-1715 Later, Levi invited Jesus and his disciples to his home as dinner guests, along with many tax collectors and other disreputable sinners. (There were many people of this kind among Jesus' followers.) 16 But when the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with tax collectors and other sinners, they asked his disciples, "Why does he eat with such scum?"

17 When Jesus heard this, he told them, "Healthy people don't need a doctor-sick people do. I have come to call not those who think they are righteous, but those who know they are sinners

I am not remotely trying to imply that I think homosexuality is a sin, I'm merely pointing out that if they wanted to be Christ-like, they would never do anything to shun someone they felt in need of saving. Rather they would welcome them and try to convert them by showing them how wonderful being a Christian can be. They are hypocrites and are intellectually lazy and dishonest.

/the relevant passage for who is a sinner and isn't would be Matthew 7:1//for clarity, ex-RC atheist

Baz744:Anyone whose faith tells them that discriminating against homosexuals matters more than providing for needy children has accepted that contract with the devil.

I'm an atheist; I don't believe in any of the stuff about gods and miracles and all that. But I think Jesus had some good points. Even if he were a fictional character, he gave some really good advice that we would all do well to listen to. Treat other people with love and compassion, not just even if, but especially if you think they are a "sinner".

These people that claim to be following him when they act with a "better than you" attitude towards other people are just... not.

ox45tallboy:Baz744: Anyone whose faith tells them that discriminating against homosexuals matters more than providing for needy children has accepted that contract with the devil.

I'm an atheist; I don't believe in any of the stuff about gods and miracles and all that. But I think Jesus had some good points. Even if he were a fictional character, he gave some really good advice that we would all do well to listen to. Treat other people with love and compassion, not just even if, but especially if you think they are a "sinner".

These people that claim to be following him when they act with a "better than you" attitude towards other people are just... not.

Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.

*coughs*As a decent person who calls herself a Christian, I say publicly and on a regular basis that this kind of discrimination isn't Christian at all.Do I win a prize or something?

Indeed. And if decent people who call themselves Christians are upset by this kind of generalization, they can do something about it. They can say publicly and on a regular basis that asshole "christians" aren't Christians at all. Until then, they're just like the "good" cop who lets the bad cop do what he wants.

*coughs*

As a decent person who calls herself a Christian, I say publicly and on a regular basis that this kind of discrimination isn't Christian at all.

ox45tallboy:demaL-demaL-yeH: It's even more pathetic when a Jew knows their Book better than they do.

I've known several Jews who study the records of Jesus. He was a pretty cool guy that gave some good advice that we should listen to, whether or not he was the son of God.

It's more along the lines of:1. A desire to understand literature, which makes extensive references to mistranslations of our Book, as well as that other one.2. In order to understand the source of arguments being aimed at us, and to help us respond as nicely as possible.3. As a cultural reference. (It's not the same as 1. above.)4. In order to better prepare our children for what they'll encounter. (Proselytizing, jerks, bigots, and the like.)5. To understand the profound differences.

An example of 5.: The good advice is a somewhat distorted reflection of Pirkei Avot. Tzedakah, for example, - mandatory charity, justice, and righteousness - is a classic missing-in-translation concept.

Baz744:ox45tallboy: I don't think people read the Bible looking for Jesus's message of love and compassion anymore. In fact, I think they purposefully skip over those parts. I love my dad, but I can't believe anyone would want to subscribe to any religion that taught hate and bigotry.

1) Nowhere do any of the earliest known New Testament manuscripts use the name "Jehovah," "YHWH," or any variation thereupon to describe "the Father."

2) Jesus stated prior to his crucifixion that his death would drive out "the prince of this world." It is widely agreed that "the prince of this world" refers to "the devil." John 12:31.

3) Paul states that the "god of this world" has "blinded" people to the truth. It is widely agreed that "the god of this world" here refers to the devil.

4) The devil reportedly offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world" to stray from the true path, suggesting that all the kingdoms of the world were his to give.

5) Popular interpretation of Genesis holds that Jehovah created this world.

6) Throughout the Old Testament, it is clear that Jehovah is the "god of this world."

7) Nowhere does either testament indicate when or why Jehovah handed over "the keys to the kingdom," so to speak, to the devil.

Conclusion: the evil "god of this world" who tempted Jesus, who had "blinded" people to the truth, was to Christ's apostles Jehovah Elohim.

Implication: virtually all of contemporary Christendom has been duped into worshiping the devil, in the guise of Jehovah Elohim. The "New Covenant?" It and all its predecessors are contracts with the devil.

Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it, but he was not necessarily the first to teach that sort of thing. There are those who believe he spent some time in the far East and picked up the contemporary teachings there of charity and justice, and brought them back to the Middle East, repackaged for a Jewish audience.

ciberido:Big_Fat_Liar: I've been 100% pro-gay rights for as long as i can remember and thought Clinton was a douche for DOMA and DADT, but I have an issue with having an issue discriminating against "openly gay" employees. My issues is a church should be able to discriminate against openly sexual employees whether heterosexual or openly gay. You don't work for a church and come to work and talk about sucking cauk or eating at the Y while at work. It's not the place for lifestyle attention whoring.

2004 called. They say their strawman is old and tired and they want him back so he can finally have a nice rest.

Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it, but he was not necessarily the first to teach that sort of thing. There are those who believe he spent some time in the far East and picked up the contemporary teachings there of charity and justice, and brought them back to the Middle East, repackaged for a Jewish audience.

Except every concept attributed to him was either directly state-of-the-art Judaism or a minor modification.I alluded to Pirkei Avot earlier. (That is a link without the commentary.)The nonsense about Pharisees was added later, since his reported teachings were pretty much identical with those of the Pharisees.

demaL-demaL-yeH:ox45tallboy: Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it,

No. No, it was not. (Leviticus 19)

Um... the entire rest of Leviticus, with the whole "eye for an eye" and "stone your disobedient children to death"? The doctrine of "always forgive others" and "love your neighbor as yourself, even those neighbors from foreign lands that you've never met" doesn't exactly match up with Mosaical law.

ox45tallboy:gerrymander: ox45tallboy: Jesus would not have behaved the way these churches have.

There's evidence that he would have: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; render unto God what is God's."

Exactly which owns what is what we're working out now. If "charity for abused children" is correctly to be usurped from the sacred world in favor of the secular, then the churches previously donating should find better use for their money fulfilling the mission they've chosen. The church members already pay taxes, which fulfills their obligation to the government.

ox45tallboy's position and knowledge of the topic have reshaped how I look at the issue.

I think putting functions like this in the hands of nongovernmental organizations is like privatizing prisons. You put way too much power in the hands of people who do not answer to the body of voters. You give too influential a voice to people who have an agenda that does not serve the Constitution.

But that is the best that two shots of first rate bourbon can come up with.

That Guy Jeff:Meh, people can spend their money however they want to spend their money. I'm not too thrilled with a children's home being funded by religious folks anyway. They usually attach strings or least try to get people to read their incredibly violent and pornographic novelization of Hebrew history.

Tyee:grumpfuff: You'll have to forgive me for not being upset or shocked that a charity focuses their giving on what their stated cause is.

Isn't that what the Baptists are doing? Focusing on what their cause and where their beliefs? You might not agree with their interpretation of scripture but they are not giving to something they believe is counter to their beliefs.

If the charity was somehow exclusively for gay kids or something, that might be a rational argument. Instead, they've cut off support for a children's home because the home opted to comply with a state anti-discrimination law.

I won't claim I've been a regular church-goer in a number of years, but it's not a question of interpretation to say that attitude goes against literally everything I've ever read about Christ.

It would be like the LGBT charity stopping support funding anti-gay activists would you be getting upset over that? I wouldn't think so.

Are you suggesting that Sunrise Children's Services is now being managed by anti-Christian activists? If not, pause and reflect on how silly that argument is.

And just be clear, I know for a fact that there are gay men and women involved in a great many charitable causes, including human rights, poverty, education, and almost certainly you've worked alongside them in Haiti. The fact that you Googled "GLBT charities" and saw orgs focused on GLBT rights doesn't mean that's all they do.

demaL-demaL-yeH:ox45tallboy: Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it,

No. No, it was not. (Leviticus 19)

That was "God" (in big booming voice) not Jesus. Sorry, but I don't see the bible to be a good source of Jesus' true teachings.The translations over the millennia amount to a published version of the "telephone" game. Lots lost in the translation.

They are a special spin-off-from-hell sect. I have yet to meet one that didn't hate ME because....."yankee cath-o-lick type".

They are what they are. I steer well clear of their hate-speech-from-a-pulpit type.

Anyone that thinks they are doing gods work by screaming at you at the top of their lungs that you're a sinning POS and will burn in hades unless you blindly follow and hate what they hate....well forget it.

ox45tallboy:demaL-demaL-yeH: ox45tallboy: Jesus' doctrine of love and compassion for everyone, especially those seen to be the "least" of people, was somewhat revolutionary where he taught it,

No. No, it was not. (Leviticus 19)

Um... the entire rest of Leviticus, with the whole "eye for an eye" and "stone your disobedient children to death"? The doctrine of "always forgive others" and "love your neighbor as yourself, even those neighbors from foreign lands that you've never met" doesn't exactly match up with Mosaical law.